The last days of the Empire

Valentine's Day is no occassion to lament the Evil Empire known as modern civilization, but maybe I can pretend that the last days perhaps love will yet triumph over fear and greed.

Good news on the stock market today, apparently due to falling oil prices below $60/bbl. I'm sure tha $30/bbl is just around the corner, although no good reason. Markets do crazy things, or should I say people in Markets do crazy things.

On the other size of crazy, a geologist and author, Kenneth Deffeyes finally got to offer his prediction that world peak oil arrived in December:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5636037/site/newsweek/ 8/13/04 - One expert has picked an Armageddon date for the peak of oil production: Thanksgiving 2005. The slow decline in world supplies will start then
http://pup.princeton.edu/chapters/s7121.html [2001 book] Hubbert's Peak: The Impending World Oil Shortage
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0517/p15s01-bogn.html [2005 book] BEYOND OIL: The View From Hubbert's Peak
And finally his recent blog that his prediction was successful:
http://www.princeton.edu/hubbert/current-events.html In the January 2004 Current Events on this web site, I predicted that world oil production would peak on Thanksgiving Day, November 24, 2005. In hindsight, that prediction was in error by three weeks. An update using the 2005 data shows that we passed the peak on December 16, 2005.

It's interesting that I was curious what his "measure" was and see his graphic above, I'm rather disappointed. Apparently he just computes (1) World Ultimate Reserve before we started drilling, (2) World cumulative production. Then he extrapolates a straight line to determine when HALF the oil has been consumed. He calls this crossover poin "peal oil" assuming a symmetrical bell-curve of production.

Okay, rah rah, give him credit for a simplified graph that anyone can read (even if numbers disputable), but whatever. What most bothers me is that it is so disputable. I don't even really understand his ultimate reserves number he's dividing by two. Even Colin Campbell throws out bigger numbers of 2.4 Tbbl, including nonconventional oil, and we still have people believing the 2000 USGS survey which suggests (95%) 2.2T to (50%) 3.0 to (5%) 3.9Tbbl, so maybe we're only 1/3 or 1/4?!

I mean basing a theory on a number no body knows is problematic. We might have the same ultimate reserves and production troubles a decade ago, or same reserves which will keep pumping higher for another decade, if the curve is not symmetric, and with political events, I expect it not to be symmetric. Although I myself prefer an earlier "peak" and slower decline curve, while technology might just delay the peak, but lead to a steeper decline.

Anyway, mostly Deffeyes's prediction is annoying. I prefer the definition of "peak oil" as the actual YEAR where the maximum oil was extracted, although that might differ slightly from the year of maximum consumption give storage. By Deffeyes's logic, if ulimate reserves are lower, then "peak oil" was perhaps ACTUALLY 2002! What does that mean? Absolutely nothing.

At least documents like the Hirsch report mean something:
http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/others/pdf/Oil_Peaking_NETL.pdf PEAKING OF WORLD OIL PRODUCTION: IMPACTS, MITIGATION, & RISK MANAGEMENT Robert L. Hirsch, SAIC, Project Leader Roger Bezdek, MISI Robert Wendling, MISI February 2005

Also: http://www.worldoil.com/Magazine/MAGAZINE_DETAIL.asp?ART_ID=2696&MONTH_YEAR=Oct-2005

They skip meaningless predictions and just say "what if" and predict possible consequences, and suggest without a 20 year lead on transitioning, we will be in trouble.

That's good enough for me! Let's ASSUME peak in 2015, tax the fuck out of the oil and natural gas industry (an 8 year plan or whatever to get to say a $5/gallon gas tax), and let the market see what happens. If we're too slow, prices rise faster, then good thing we did what we did, and if we're too fast, big deal, then we're leading the world.

Alas, large exploitive systems aren't made for rational conservation. We were first in, and we're not going to be first out of such a sweet deal as fossil fuels.

I'm glad for voices like U.S. Rep. Roscoe Bartlett
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11320137/ Maryland's most conservative congressman leading charge against fuel dependency

"Unless we have a program that has kind of the breadth of putting a man on the moon and the intensity of the Manhattan Project (the effort to develop the first nuclear bombs), I think we're going to have a very bumpy ride," Bartlett said on a recent morning in his Frederick office. "It's going to be difficult, but there are a lot things that are difficult that are very satisfying."

For me I can't be happy to think about our future unless this issue is actively managed. I have no clear evidence that a modern economy can run with out oil or natural gas.

The craziest thing is environmentalists are still fighting tooth and nail for every little improvement in air or water quality, and it'll be all tossed out the window on a bad day when the next crisis hits and the president decides to take a little more executive power.

Environmental concerns lead to limits applied to pollution and development, but at a cost. While energy is cheap, we can pay the cost, but as energy rises, how can there be anything but reducing standards.

Anyway, I don't wish away environmental standards. I only admit bandaids are not enough. A drunk with a pocket of cash can be the life of the party, but whose going to keep the party going when the money is gone? And I worry more for the poor than nature. Nature will recover after she's knockd us down to size. New species will come, alhough I admit I probably do care more for the lost nature than the poor who are merely individuals.

As always I must consider my own reactions to risk. Beyond reducing debt, and living frugally, my life is just a waiting game. How do you plan for disaster?